Confederate Flag

[KyleSmith7117]

There was a topic issue on the confederate flag few days ago. Saying that the confederate flag (known as the Naval Jack) was a symbol of slavery and racism. The flag has been abused by racist groups, often in an attempt to gain favor with Southerners who love their flag, the flag does not lose its honorable history. It was born from a powerful Christian symbol, the Cross of St. Andrew, and developed for use by troops defending their homes against an aggressor in a war they preferred not to fight. As the soldier's flag, it represents the honor and valor of those who answered the call of duty.

Abuse of the flag by any other group is just that abuse and a distortion of its true meaning and its real symbolism.

But, if critics argue that any Confederate flag is a symbol of bigotry and racism, because it has been displayed by racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan, then they must also be prepared to pull the Stars and Stripes off of every flag pole in the nation and the Christian flag out of every church, because these flags have been equally abused by racist groups. The KKK regularly flies the Stars and Stripes and Christian flags, often in far larger numbers than the Confederate battle flag, though nobody calls for the abolition of these abused symbols.

Every flag known to man has its goods and bads. For example, take a look at American flag. The flag symbols that the American's killed, raped, even slaved the Native Americans since 1600s. The American's killed over millions of buffalo just to starve the indians so they can steal their land. The confederate flag isnt alone on its bad reputation.

 

[stray bullet]

(psst! Those aren't confederate flags... in fact, most of this country's most racist groups are located in the north)

It attempts to make the civil war a noble cause. If you talk to historians and civil war fanatics, most would probably just smile and nod if you told them the war was about slavery. It only became an issue later in the war when they were losing and Europe was considering recognizing the south. It also gave reason for the black soldiers being enlisted.

Anyone that thinks a racist country (the north hated blacks, the south considered them inferior) sent 600,000 people to their deaths just to help blacks is loony.

 

[Key Of David]

I'm not proud of slavery but I am proud to be a southerner. Its not uncommon to see an African American who is also proud to be one. I can't say I am proud of the Confederate Flag because I admittedly don't know all of what went on. I know enough to know there is A LOT more to the story than what the commie public school system wants you to know.

If I were ever to be proud of the Confederate Flag, it would be simply because it represents a people who share a common culture unlike that of the rest of the country or the world. An unstoppable spirit these people possess, especially when the going gets tough. Thank you God for making me a southerner!

 

[Xen_Antares]

There was a topic issue on the confederate flag few days ago. Saying that the confederate flag (known as the Naval Jack) was a symbol of slavery and racism. The flag has been abused by racist groups, often in an attempt to gain favor with Southerners who love their flag, the flag does not lose its honorable history. It was born from a powerful Christian symbol, the Cross of St. Andrew, and developed for use by troops defending their homes against an aggressor in a war they preferred not to fight. As the soldier's flag, it represents the honor and valor of those who answered the call of duty.

Wait a minute, are you saying the southerners didnt want to fight? *LOL* of all the revisionist bull, dont tell me you actually believe this? If the southerners didn't want to fight why in praytell did they open fire on Fort Sumpter? Dont hand me this we asked them to leave and they refused bull **** either. The south firing upon Fort Sumpter would be no different than if Spain fired upon the British in Gibraltar. The Fort was federal land, not property of South Carolina, its like going onto Federal land today, it might be located in your state, but it follows a whole different set of rules.

The Souths stupidity on firing on Fort Sumpter is what drove it into its grave. Most northerners were sympathetic to the south, it was Horatio Seymour who said "Depart our wayward sister and go in peace." However when news reached of the south's aggression Lincoln had the support needed for war. All the south had to do was wait but they refused, instead the SOUTH chose war, not the north. If they waited and Lincoln attacked, the support for the war would have been minimal and possibly led to Lincoln being impeached or overthrown. The Union blockade didnt come into effect until one week after Fort Sumpter was fired upon.

So if youre going to talk about the war get the facts straight, it was started by the Confederacy not the Union. The south's non democratic government with its moronic leaders are the cause of the ruin the south felt because of the war. Lincoln was a skillful politician, Davis was a far cry from. Jefferson Davis would have better served the South as Commander of the western armies where he could have slowed or stopped Grant, Stephens or Breckenridge would have been much better as President's. Blame the southern leaders for appointing the government rather than letting the people elect one. The way I see it the Union crushed a slave holding dictatorship sepratist entity rather than a democracy wanting independence, thus preserving democracy in the south and freeing the slaves. Two points for the north.

Where as normally I support sepratists, I find it hard to think of the souths defeat as anything but good. Ironically the very man the south seceded to escape from turned out to be their best friend at the wars end, again it was a southerner who led to evils of reconstruction by assassinating the President. Lincolns reconstruction would have been much friendlier than the radical Republicans.

 

[USincognito]

It attempts to make the civil war a noble cause. If you talk to historians and civil war fanatics, most would probably just smile and nod if you told them the war was about slavery. It only became an issue later in the war when they were losing and Europe was considering recognizing the south. It also gave reason for the black soldiers being enlisted.

Anyone that thinks a racist country (the north hated blacks, the south considered them inferior) sent 600,000 people to their deaths just to help blacks is loony.

Ummm. So which state rights exactly led to the Civil War? Let's see. The Southern states were worried about new states being brought in as non-slave states which might lead to a anti-slave majority voting block in Congress destroying the South economically after all it's slaves were set free.

You know, I can see how people might argue the "real" issues" were economic and states rights.

 

[jayem]

I'm a native southerner also, but the Confederate flag issue is a loser. Whether it's fair or not, the flag is just too closely associated with white supremacy. Let's face it, white supremacy was the prevailing and accepted view in those days, in both the north and south, but the elite planter/landowner class in the south used it to justify slavery. The Confederate flag is now seen as a symbol of this. We can call the war about states' rights, but the main issue was a property right--specifically the right to own slaves. And most southerners were not slaveowners--the war was driven by the plantation-owning gentry trying to protect their economic interests. (Like a lot of wars--fought by the poor and working class for the benefit of the wealthy.) Interesting quote from the diary of James Lockney, of the 28th Wisconsin Infantry, referring to some Confederate soldiers in Arkansas in October, 1863:

"Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North..." (the diary is online at http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html)


Edit: The link seems to be down. Sorry.

 

[Lillithspeak]

Now can we acknowledge that our black brothers and sisters might not want this flag honored? Is it just beyond us to accept that after everything our ancestors did to their ancestors, we owe them this? Is it just too darn much to ask, to not have this symbol be a part of their everyday life? I didn't own any slaves and neither did any of you. My ancestors probably didn't either, but it's the one act of decency, regarding their history, that we could all support to honor their pain, a small act of redemption and honor if you ask me. Why do so many refuse to even do this?

 

[Higgaion]

I think that Kyle and bullet made some excellent points. There is a definite double standard at work here against the Confederate battle-flag and the South in general, and it's usually born out of ignorance and/or emotional hysteria that prevents many folks from engaging in dispassionate analysis.

Here is another angle to consider. It's a quote I came across today from columnist Sam Francis, one of many individuals and groups whom the Southern Poverty Law Center outrageously labels a white supremacist:

"Praising the Confederate Flag is suicide because it suggests (or is taken to prove) deviation from egalitarianism and sympathy for social or racial hierarchy, and what is called 'democracy' in the United States today is in fact an incipient totalitarianism, in which deviation from the National Creed of Equality is ruinous and may, in the not-very-distant future, be actually illegal (as it already largely is in Europe)."

 

[Lillithspeak]

I think that Kyle and bullet made some excellent points. There is a definite double standard at work here against the Confederate battle-flag and the South in general, and it's usually born out of ignorance and/or emotional hysteria that prevents many folks from engaging in dispassionate analysis.

Here is another angle to consider. It's a quote I came across today from columnist Sam Francis, one of many individuals and groups whom the Southern Poverty Law Center outrageously labels a white supremacist:

"Praising the Confederate Flag is suicide because it suggests (or is taken to prove) deviation from egalitarianism and sympathy for social or racial hierarchy, and what is called 'democracy' in the United States today is in fact an incipient totalitarianism, in which deviation from the National Creed of Equality is ruinous and may, in the not-very-distant future, be actually illegal (as it already largely is in Europe)."

So, what part of his statement is being unfairly depicted as racist? That it's totalitarianism if most of us believe in equality? Isn't that what this country was based on? Equal rights for everyone, none above another? That he believes or sympathizes with social or racial hierarchy? Racial hierarchy, with the whites above all others I'm sure, isn't racist? Your point is?

 

[KyleSmith7117]

"Forgive"

 

[Inspired]

What some people see when they see that flag is pride, pride in their southern heritage. What other people see when they look at that flag is a constant reminder of the torture and pain that they themselves or their family and loved ones endured. The "south" as it was no longer exists, unless we are staging another civil war. My question is, is your pride worth the pain you cause the other side?

 

[Key Of David]

Wait a minute, are you saying the southerners didnt want to fight? *LOL* of all the revisionist bull, dont tell me you actually believe this? If the southerners didn't want to fight why in praytell did they open fire on Fort Sumpter? Dont hand me this we asked them to leave and they refused bull **** either. The south firing upon Fort Sumpter would be no different than if Spain fired upon the British in Gibraltar. The Fort was federal land, not property of South Carolina, its like going onto Federal land today, it might be located in your state, but it follows a whole different set of rules.

The Souths stupidity on firing on Fort Sumpter is what drove it into its grave. Most northerners were sympathetic to the south, it was Horatio Seymour who said "Depart our wayward sister and go in peace." However when news reached of the south's aggression Lincoln had the support needed for war. All the south had to do was wait but they refused, instead the SOUTH chose war, not the north. If they waited and Lincoln attacked, the support for the war would have been minimal and possibly led to Lincoln being impeached or overthrown. The Union blockade didnt come into effect until one week after Fort Sumpter was fired upon.

So if youre going to talk about the war get the facts straight, it was started by the Confederacy not the Union. The south's non democratic government with its moronic leaders are the cause of the ruin the south felt because of the war. Lincoln was a skillful politician, Davis was a far cry from. Jefferson Davis would have better served the South as Commander of the western armies where he could have slowed or stopped Grant, Stephens or Breckenridge would have been much better as President's. Blame the southern leaders for appointing the government rather than letting the people elect one. The way I see it the Union crushed a slave holding dictatorship sepratist entity rather than a democracy wanting independence, thus preserving democracy in the south and freeing the slaves. Two points for the north.

Where as normally I support sepratists, I find it hard to think of the souths defeat as anything but good. Ironically the very man the south seceded to escape from turned out to be their best friend at the wars end, again it was a southerner who led to evils of reconstruction by assassinating the President. Lincolns reconstruction would have been much friendlier than the radical Republicans.

If you are going to be part of the millions who like to use the word "stupid" when describing southerners....you could at least learn how to spell. Its Sumter not "sumpter". I know because I've lived there.

 

[Key Of David]

(psst! Those aren't confederate flags... in fact, most of this country's most racist groups are located in the north)

It attempts to make the civil war a noble cause. If you talk to historians and civil war fanatics, most would probably just smile and nod if you told them the war was about slavery. It only became an issue later in the war when they were losing and Europe was considering recognizing the south. It also gave reason for the black soldiers being enlisted.

Anyone that thinks a racist country (the north hated blacks, the south considered them inferior) sent 600,000 people to their deaths just to help blacks is loony.

Great post stray that obviously got conveniently ignored....the fact that Europe even had opinions of what was going on and Britain was really tempted to get involved on behalf of the south....is utterly and completely ignored. The fact that there were such economic differences that festered for so many years also does. The fact that the majority of blacks whom the northerners "freed" had to come back down here because when they fled up there they couldn't have a life...gets ignored as well. The north didn't want them up there at all.

 

[IrishJohan]

It attempts to make the civil war a noble cause. If you talk to historians and civil war fanatics, most would probably just smile and nod if you told them the war was about slavery. It only became an issue later in the war when they were losing and Europe was considering recognizing the south. It also gave reason for the black soldiers being enlisted.

Let's not minimize the importance of slavery as a primary cause either. One only has to examine the Southern state's own declarations on why they seceded to find just how central the issue of slavery was to their reasons for leaving the Union:

Georgia:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war...

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin...

South Carolina:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

Texas:

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?


The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States. By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

Click here for full text: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Anyone that thinks a racist country (the north hated blacks, the south considered them inferior) sent 600,000 people to their deaths just to help blacks is loony.

Indeed. Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the Union than with ending slavery. Emancipation becamse a weapon to use against the 'rebellion', though I think Lincoln also was maturing in his abolitionist views.

 

[IrishJohan]

Wait a minute, are you saying the southerners didnt want to fight? *LOL* of all the revisionist bull, dont tell me you actually believe this? If the southerners didn't want to fight why in praytell did they open fire on Fort Sumpter? Dont hand me this we asked them to leave and they refused bull **** either. The south firing upon Fort Sumpter would be no different than if Spain fired upon the British in Gibraltar. The Fort was federal land, not property of South Carolina, its like going onto Federal land today, it might be located in your state, but it follows a whole different set of rules.

The South didn't want a war with the North, it wanted to leave the Union peacefully with all its lands and rights intact. The firing on Ft. Sumter was foolish, but consistent with what they wanted.

The Souths stupidity on firing on Fort Sumpter is what drove it into its grave. Most northerners were sympathetic to the south, it was Horatio Seymour who said "Depart our wayward sister and go in peace." However when news reached of the south's aggression Lincoln had the support needed for war. All the south had to do was wait but they refused, instead the SOUTH chose war, not the north. If they waited and Lincoln attacked, the support for the war would have been minimal and possibly led to Lincoln being impeached or overthrown. The Union blockade didnt come into effect until one week after Fort Sumpter was fired upon.

Agreed.

The south's non democratic government with its moronic leaders are the cause of the ruin the south felt because of the war.

The Confederacy was hardly "non democratic". White men over 21 did vote just as they had in the North (women and non-whites didn't have the vote in either, though women had a vote in some state elections). Elections were held for the Confederate Congress at least twice before the end, and for president once.

Lincoln was a skillful politician, Davis was a far cry from. Jefferson Davis would have better served the South as Commander of the western armies where he could have slowed or stopped Grant, Stephens or Breckenridge would have been much better as President's.

Agreed. Ironically, Davis never wanted the Confederate presidency but preferred to be a general in the CS Army. When he was selected as provisional president of the Confederacy, his wife Varina reported that his reaction was as if he was given notice of his own death.

Where as normally I support sepratists, I find it hard to think of the souths defeat as anything but good.

Yes and no. It is good the South lost because extreme states' rights were defeated, slavery was abolished, and we do not live today in a continent divided by two countries bitterly opposed to one another. It is bad however that the result was a Federal government so centralized that the Founders' ideas in the Constitution for federalism was destroyed.

Ironically the very man the south seceded to escape from turned out to be their best friend at the wars end, again it was a southerner who led to evils of reconstruction by assassinating the President. Lincolns reconstruction would have been much friendlier than the radical Republicans.

Absolutely. Hence one reason Davis, Lee and others mourned Lincoln's assassination (besides the fact this was the first American assassination of a president).

 

[IrishJohan]

What some people see when they see that flag is pride, pride in their southern heritage. What other people see when they look at that flag is a constant reminder of the torture and pain that they themselves or their family and loved ones endured. The "south" as it was no longer exists, unless we are staging another civil war. My question is, is your pride worth the pain you cause the other side?

This question works both ways whether one supports the Confederate flag or not. I personally do not have a problem with it and believe it belongs on Civil War sites. Yet as part of state flags, though that is something for the people of those states to decide, I oppose this. The war is over and it's time to move on.

 

[Dale]

*
I will say first that I was born in a southern state of southern parents and yet I have no sympathy whatever for the Confederacy.
*
I have found a lot of exaggerated rhetoric about the Confederate flag, the Stars and Bars. The newspapers will say that no black person would ever use it.
*
From experience, I can say that this is not so. Living in Atlanta, I have seen an elderly black man wearing a Stars and Bars hat. I've seen a young black woman wearing it on a leather jacket. And I've seen a young black man driving a car with the Stars and Bars on the antenna.
*
Despite all the rhetoric, some black people treat it as a neutral symbol of the region.
*

 

[Uzi_4_U]

I think that this picture says it all. Oh and I happen to own a Confederate Flag by the way. I live in Washington State too!

 

[IrishJohan]

*
I will say first that I was born in a southern state of southern parents and yet I have no sympathy whatever for the Confederacy.
*
I have found a lot of exaggerated rhetoric about the Confederate flag, the Stars and Bars. The newspapers will say that no black person would ever use it.
*
From experience, I can say that this is not so. Living in Atlanta, I have seen an elderly black man wearing a Stars and Bars hat. I've seen a young black woman wearing it on a leather jacket. And I've seen a young black man driving a car with the Stars and Bars on the antenna.
*
Despite all the rhetoric, some black people treat it as a neutral symbol of the region.
*

I've seen one black man wear it on a t-shirt at VMI. Yet these are anamolies and not what most blacks seem to think of the Confederate flag.

 

[Uzi_4_U]

Am I a racist because I own a copy of the Stars and Bars?